The oracle, as the god's answer to the king's questions, thus gave rise to a ritual as elaborate as the rites connected with the preparations for the answer. The oracles were not always trustworthy, as we can well believe, and often they were not definite enough. If we may judge from an expression in one of the divine messages to Esarhaddon, the king appears to have entered a complaint against a former oracle, which was not to his liking. Ishtar accordingly sends the following message:[532] The former word which I spoke to thee, On it thou didst not rely. Now, then, in the later one you may have confidence. Glorify me! Clearly, the Assyrian kings believed that the oracles existed to announce what they wanted to hear. They probably did not hesitate to follow their own judgment whenever they considered it superior to the advice given to them by the gods. There would, of course, be no difficulty in accounting for failures brought about through obedience to the oracles. The priests, hemmed in on every side by minute ceremonial observances, forfeited their power as mediators by the slightest failure in the observance of these rites. An error or a mishap would entail most serious consequences. A misleading oracle, therefore, and to a certain extent, unfavorable omens, would be the fault of the priests. The deity would send 'a lying message'[533] or bring about unfavorable omens as a sign of his or her displeasure. On the other hand, the priests in turn would not hesitate--speaking of course in the name of the gods--to accuse the kings of neglecting Ishtar or Nabu or Shamash, as the case may be. In an oracle addressed to Esarhaddon,[534] Ishtar of Arbela is represented as complaining that the king has done nothing for her, although she has done so much for him. Such a state of affairs cannot go on. Since they do nothing for me, I will not give anything to thee. The king promptly responds by copious offerings, and the goddess appears to be pacified.